Talk:Homestuck: Act 6 Act 5
Page image Why is the picture for the article Roxy and the Condesce, when the caption is from Dirk? Shouldn't the picture be the last frame from the opening flash, with Jake and Erisolsprite and the Dirk chat bubble over Jake's head? 16:06, December 8, 2012 (UTC) Backforwards OK the latest update does help in regards to Hussie's narrative claim that the acts went backwards to A6A5A1. Caliborn has immediately pointed out that, that is something you cannot do. Also Hussie claims the "Act Act Acts" are meaningless, which I guess would make people who want to merge all this back into Act 6 Act 5. Of course Caliborn began using his crowbar again to make Hussie comply with helping him again, and likely acknowledging whatever act designation this actually is. Really the situation seems to be the "Act Act Acts" are a joke that also actually happened, the going backward an Act Act Act is just a joke made to confuse and annoy. So yeah we've got more, but still also nothing. Yep. - The Light6 (talk) 05:08, January 27, 2013 (UTC) :It looks like we're probably going "back to A6A5A2", and if that does happen to be the case then I think we should leave these updates as being part of A6A5A2. Also, if after A6A5A2 ends it leads back into A6A5A1 I think I have an idea for the navbox, though granted it's pretty weird. |state= } |list1= ( , ( )) ( , , , , , , , , ( ( )))}} :That's the best I've got. So... Thoughts? 05:24, January 27, 2013 (UTC) ::Now it says 'ACT 6 ACT 5 ACT 1 X2 COMBO!' which I mean confirms us back in Act 6 Act 5 Act 1. The question is, do we merge the pages or do we get up to sime weird shit? NikLink (talk) 10:29, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :::Caliborn also re-iterated the "can't go backwards" thing. But yeah I think the only sensible way we are going to be able to manage it is the merge it all back into "Act 6 Act 5" and than have the "act act acts" as sub-sections on a single page. - The Light6 (talk) 10:35, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :::Also I know "ACT 6 ACT 5 ACT 1 X2" refers to the fact that the site is current doubled up on itself, but what if it also the proper act designation, as you know, the "second" A6A5A1. Because you know having that as the article name would make this situation even more ridiculous. But yeah at this point I am just going to say: merge, split the act act acts into different sub-sections, and list them on the navbox like so: ( , , ) - The Light6 (talk) 10:44, January 28, 2013 (UTC) ::::Well, if we're going to merge them into one page only A6A5 should appear in the navbox. Only if we're going to keep them on separate pages, should we see the whole (A6A5A1, A6A5A2, A6A5A1x2) thing. NikLink (talk) 10:51, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :::::I disagree, the navbox is designed for information display + navigation. Even if it is all merged it quickly displays that the sub-act is further sub-divided and offers easy navigation to those sections. In any case I threw together a merged page with a hypothetical arrangement of the navbox: User:The Light6/Sandbox - The Light6 (talk) 11:54, January 28, 2013 (UTC) Definitely pro-merge. :Voicing my support for the merge. 14:30, January 28, 2013 (UTC) Against the merge. A6-5-2 is a thing and should be acknowledged and have its own page. There are better and mroe creative ways to fix this problem. I would link to A6-5-2 from A-6-5-1, and then link back to the A-6-5-1x2 section (which is gonna be made) of the A6-5-1 page. The ( , , ) idea works for me as well. Depending on how many pages A6-5-1x2 has. --Bananadrama (talk) 14:48, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :A6-5-2 is a thing and should be acknowledged :Setting aside "Let us never speak of ACT 6 ACT 5 ACT 2 again", of course it should be acknowledged. That doesn't automatically qualify it for a page. The more important thing to bear in mind about all of this is that Hussie explicitly stated in-comic that "The act act acts are kind of meaningless anyway." He didn't say acts, he didn't say sub-acts. He explicitly referred to the second level of subdivision, the one being discussed, as being meaningless. We can speculate as to whether it also applies to the first layer of subdivision, but given that those come with actual shifts of focus (unlike this subdivision), it's unlikely. We can keep the sub-sub-sub acts with separate links to them in the navbox, I don't really care either way if we do or not, but they don't each need page to themselves. :There are better and more creative ways to fix this problem :It's not really a "problem" per se. And we don't need to be "creative", we need to be pragmatic. ::I have to agree with SN, just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Basically every thing, is a thing, but that doesn't mean that separate things can't be conglomerated, especially in this case, if we have A6A5A1 and A6A5A1x2 on one page (in separate sub-sections) and A6A5A2 on another page, we are basically telling readers that they should read the first half of one page, than go and read another page before coming back and reading the second half of the first page. For a wiki that isn't really convenient and doesn't help simplify the information, rather it makes the whole issue more confusing to people reading. ::tl;dr - While we can do it, we shouldn't do it. - The Light6 (talk) 15:33, January 28, 2013 (UTC) I've thought this over a lot, and I've decided that I am pro-merge. 15:34, January 28, 2013 (UTC) ::AS FOR THE A6A5 THING, we should go with the complete merge AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE and reconvene at a later time when more information is to be had.NikLink (talk) 21:47, January 28, 2013 (UTC) So a quick round up of the different ways of handling this issue, plus pros and cons, and the level of support for each. - The Light6 (talk) 16:21, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :I'm sorry but 1x2 is 2, therefore A6A5A1x2 is A6A5A2, my vote is for keeping it as A6A5A2, at least until something more definitive comes up. 17:49, January 28, 2013 (UTC) Going to keep this short. In favour of full merge. Not opposed to having two sub-sections on A6A5A1 for pre- and post- A6A5A2, and A6A5A2 as its own page. Opposed to all other suggestions (no offense). 18:22, January 28, 2013 (UTC) :Actually I agree entirely with Bitterlime. While I'm most in favor of the full merge, I'm not entirely opposed to the "two sections on the A6A5A1 page" idea. Furthermore, while the "make A6A5A1x2 its own page" idea isn't inherently bad in my opinion, it's basically the same deal as the Act 4 epilogue. 18:28, January 28, 2013 (UTC) I strongly suggest we conclude this asap. Imo we already have a clear tendency, additionally it can always be changed later...but we really need to implement something soon. After that we can focus on the navbox redesign. 21:56, January 28, 2013 (UTC) "... we are basically telling readers that they should read the first half of one page, than go and read another page before coming back and reading the second half of the first page." Yes. "...having two sub-sections on A6A5A1 for pre- and post- A6A5A2, and A6A5A2 as its own page." This is exactly what I meant. I can totally imagine keeping the A6-5-1 page as it is now, then linking to the A6-5-2 page in a silly manner, and continuing with A6-5-1x2 as if A6-5-2 never happened, thereby translating the "Let us never speak of ACT 6 ACT 5 ACT 2 again." joke to the wiki. --Bananadrama (talk) 22:14, January 28, 2013 (UTC) Silly as that sounds, that's actually a pretty good argument for that format, in my opinion. I mean look at the Pumpkin page. It clearly wouldn't be the first time that we translated an inside joke to the wiki. But Bitterlime's right, let's just do the merge for now since it has the most support and we can change it later if needed. I'll do it right now if nobody is opposed. 22:28, January 28, 2013 (UTC) OK so I think we've got a clear majority for a complete merge. So I'm going to go ahead and do it. - The Light6 (talk) 00:04, January 29, 2013 (UTC) And the act ended and just referred to it as the "END OF ACT 6 ACT 5", which basically settles the matter. - The Light6 (talk) 06:38, February 16, 2013 (UTC) Navbox design → Template talk:Navbox Homestuck Acts#Redesign Compromise? Both previous editors were correct in a sense. Crowbar, cal, and whatsits were given to Jack b2 "by Gamzee, via the Droll?" Would this fix work? more accurate than saying either alone, because gamzee did send it, as evidenced by the card, but droll definitely delivered. 09:51, February 5, 2013 (UTC) :I think that works perfectly, surprised nobody else thought of it yet. 14:38, February 5, 2013 (UTC) Act Bifurcation I think we should add to "Trivia" that Hussie keeps repeating Act 5's format whenever a variation of it apears, such as in Act 6 Act 5 Act 1-2 and Act 6 Intermission 5 Intermission 1-2 16:52, March 11, 2013 (UTC) Calliope's Spiral / Caliborn's Black Hole My edit earlier was reverted noting the similarity between (which is also seen on ) and the spiral created when Caliborn by creating a black hole. The reverter said that they were the same drawing, but I think they missed something. While Calliope's drawing does appear (very briefly) early in the animation, that's not what I was talking about. Let the animation play to the very end. It's definitely not the same. For one thing, Caliborn's black hole spiral is red, while Calliope's drawing and the spiral in her hidden area are both white. But the shape is undeniably similar - right down to the black hole in the center of it and the larger red/white circle where the outer arm is. That has to be intentional, and should be noted somewhere. 04:13, August 30, 2013 (UTC) :No no, I think you misinterpreted my response. I knew exactly what you meant. I was saying that, while her drawing definitely references the black hole, and while her drawing is also reminiscent of that secluded dream bubble, We should not say that the black hole looks like the venue in the dream bubble. It should be noted elsewhere where the drawing itself is the topic. Of course, I did ask for outside opinions as well. 04:17, August 30, 2013 (UTC) ::The drawing doesn't have its own page though, as far as I know, nor does the black hole, nor for that matter does Calliope's dream bubble, which are the only more appropriate places I could think of to mention it than here. All I could find was a vague mention on Calliope and Caliborn's room, which is kind of a hard-to-find page. Maybe it should also be noted (have both shown side by side, maybe) on Future post-scratch Earth#Into another universe, where the red spiral image appears. (To save people from sitting through that long animation to see the image at the very end and compare.) 04:34, August 30, 2013 (UTC) :::I actually just added the mention on the Calliope and Caliborn's room page, tried to make it as thorough as possible. That's a good idea though. EDIT: Done. 04:41, August 30, 2013 (UTC) ::::Ah, didn't check the history on that - so it actually wasn't noted anywhere else before? Yay for me, I guess. (Also it just occurred to me, though it's probably been noted before - Green Sun/Red Sun... I bet I know where Calliope is now...) I'm not sure about the mirrored version of the drawing though - I guess it kind of looks like a cherub face, but it'd be good to have a non-edited version up as well. I'd say keep the mirrored one on Calliope and Caliborn's room, but just have a regular non-mirrored shot up for future post-scratch Earth, because that's there for the purpose of comparison to the black hole. I could probably do it myself, but then I'd have to create an account and such to upload a file? Not sure. (At least on the wiki I'm an admin on, anonymous users can't upload files.) 21:24, August 30, 2013 (UTC) :::::I'll take care of it later tonight. Good theory, by the way! The connections between creation/destruction, green/red, space/time etc. have always been there, but I never considered that Calliope (or her alt self) would be actually located at the green sun itself... has interesting implications with the Vriska/Green Sun theory... 21:36, August 30, 2013 (UTC)